Thursday, November 5, 2015

NATIONAL PIT BULL VICTIM AWARENESS - ALLEN YOUNG WAS 21-MONTHS-OLD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2006, WHEN HIS FATHER'S 4 PIT BULLS DRAGGED HIM FROM A BED AND FATALLLY WOUNDED HIM

He was in his father's bed asleep when the father stepped outside to talk to his landlord on November 5, 2006. The father was reportedly outside for "5 to 10 minutes." In this time, the pit bulls dragged the boy from the bed and began mauling him on the floor. The boy died the next morning at a hospital. The pair had recently moved to the location of the attack in Bamberg South Carolina and the father had not yet had time to build a pen for the dogs. The father was subsequently charged with involuntary manslaughter.

For more on his story visit: http://bit.ly/1LSSeiW
_____________________________________________________________

BAMBERG – A one-year-old boy died after he was mauled by four pit bulls in his home Saturday night, Bamberg County Sheriff Ed Darnell said Sunday.

Allen L. Young of 910 Sweetpea Road, Bamberg, died following the attack that occurred just after 10 p.m. Authorities believe the child died of multiple trauma to the head and body.

The victim’s father, 25-year-old Michael Anton Young Jr., told deputies he had just moved in the mobile home where the incident occurred Saturday afternoon, according to a Sheriff’s Office incident report.

He said he put the child in bed around 10 p.m. before stepping outside the home to talk to his boss, who is also his landlord.

Michael Young said when he re-entered the home, everything was quiet, and he saw a few of the dogs exiting the bedroom. Young said he then saw his son on the kitchen floor, bleeding.

He and his boss transported the boy to Bamberg County Hospital, where Allen Young was airlifted to Palmetto Health Richland’s trauma center and died just hours after the attack.

Allen Young’s body was sent to Newberry on Sunday for an autopsy.

Michael Young told deputies the dogs were hitched outside at his mother’s house, where he last lived, and he was planning to hitch them outside his home the following day. He said his mother told him the dogs had to go with him when he moved, according to the report.

“He wanted to leave them until Monday,” Darnell said, when Michael Young said he would have time to chain them outside.

But Darnell said by the time he was finished moving Saturday, Michael Young chose to keep the dogs in the house until the next day, according to his statements to authorities.

“He’d never had any problems with the dogs before,” Darnell said. “In fact, the child … had helped feed them before.”

The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control was contacted following the attack, and the dogs were euthanized by a Bamberg veterinarian before their heads were sent to DHEC for rabies testing.

Darnell said the rabies testing is standard and no family members are being treated for the illness at this time.

“We just wanted to make sure they (the dogs) were all right,” he said. “Once these dogs see blood, that’s what drives them.”

He said the dogs were friendly when deputies and a K-9 unit responded to the house to take them into custody.

“The dogs came right to them … and they picked them up with no trouble,” Darnell said. “These were pit bulls, but they were not trained to fight. They were just pets.”

An investigation into the incident should be complete later in the week, Darnell said.

“His (Allen Young’s) father is 25 years old, and he’s going to have to live with this the rest of his life,” Darnell said. “I’m sure he didn’t mean for this to happen. It was just an unfortunate incident.”

Darnell said in his 29 years serving with the Bamberg County Sheriff’s Office, he has never had a child die by dog bite.

“It’s sad when you see a small child like that, helpless,” he said. “People need to keep dogs away from small children.

“These are not Chihuahuas or poodles. This type of dog does not need to be around small children.”

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.